Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Foster v. Chatman"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Notecardforfree
(ALT1 is good to go)
imported>Cwmhiraeth
(To Prep 3)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DYKsubpage
+
<noinclude>[[Category:Passed DYK nominations&nbsp;from May 2016]]<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
|monthyear=May 2016  
+
:''The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify this page.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|this nomination's talk page]], [[Talk:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|the article's talk page]] or [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know]]), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. '''No further edits should be made to this page'''.''
|passed=<!--When closing discussion, enter yes or no -->
+
 
|2=
+
The result was: '''promoted''' by [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)<br />
 
{{DYK conditions}}
 
{{DYK conditions}}
 
====Foster v. Chatman====
 
====Foster v. Chatman====
 
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Foster v. Chatman|Foster v. Chatman}}
 
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Foster v. Chatman|Foster v. Chatman}}
<!--
 
 
                  Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion.
 
 
-->
 
 
* ... that a '''[[Foster v. Chatman|decision]]''' by the [[United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]] finding that prosecutors unconstitutionally removed black prospective jurors in a murder trial of a black man may not overturn his [[capital punishment|death sentence]]?
 
* ... that a '''[[Foster v. Chatman|decision]]''' by the [[United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]] finding that prosecutors unconstitutionally removed black prospective jurors in a murder trial of a black man may not overturn his [[capital punishment|death sentence]]?
 
:* '''ALT1''': ... that despite the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] holding in '''''[[Foster v. Chatman]]''''' that prosecutors purposefully [[racial discrimination in jury selection|discriminated against black jurors]] in his trial, Timothy Foster's [[death sentence]] might not be overturned?
 
:* '''ALT1''': ... that despite the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] holding in '''''[[Foster v. Chatman]]''''' that prosecutors purposefully [[racial discrimination in jury selection|discriminated against black jurors]] in his trial, Timothy Foster's [[death sentence]] might not be overturned?
Line 17: Line 12:
 
:* ''Comment'': This is a rather mundane Supreme Court decision, so a "hooky" hook is hard to create. The sole dissenting justice was the court's only African-American, but a hook relating to that fact may not be neutral and raises BLP issues.
 
:* ''Comment'': This is a rather mundane Supreme Court decision, so a "hooky" hook is hard to create. The sole dissenting justice was the court's only African-American, but a hook relating to that fact may not be neutral and raises BLP issues.
 
<small>Created by [[User:Elium2|Elium2]] ([[User talk:Elium2|talk]]), [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] ([[User talk:Wugapodes|talk]]), and [[User:AHeneen|AHeneen]] ([[User talk:AHeneen|talk]]). Nominated by [[User:AHeneen|AHeneen]] ([[User talk:AHeneen|talk]]) at 07:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC).</small>
 
<small>Created by [[User:Elium2|Elium2]] ([[User talk:Elium2|talk]]), [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] ([[User talk:Wugapodes|talk]]), and [[User:AHeneen|AHeneen]] ([[User talk:AHeneen|talk]]). Nominated by [[User:AHeneen|AHeneen]] ([[User talk:AHeneen|talk]]) at 07:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC).</small>
<!--
 
* {{DYKmake|Foster v. Chatman|Elium2|subpage=Foster v. Chatman}}
 
* {{DYKmake|Foster v. Chatman|Wugapodes}}
 
* {{DYKmake|Foster v. Chatman|AHeneen}}
 
-->
 
  
 
:* '''comment''' I added another hook I was thinking of that's similar. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] [[User talk:Wugapodes|[t<sup>h</sup>ɔk]]] [[Special:Contributions/Wugapodes|[kantʃɻɪbz]]] 14:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 
:* '''comment''' I added another hook I was thinking of that's similar. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] [[User talk:Wugapodes|[t<sup>h</sup>ɔk]]] [[Special:Contributions/Wugapodes|[kantʃɻɪbz]]] 14:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Line 28: Line 18:
 
:::I really like '''ALT1''', but there are two things that would need to change before '''ALT1''' could be approved: (1) the article would need to state that Foster may not get a new trial (right now, it only says that his conviction may not be overturned), and (2) you should change the word "finding" with "holding" or "ruling" (trial courts generally issue findings of fact while appellate courts generally issue holdings in which those courts apply facts to law). I will also add a few brief editorial suggestions on the article's talk page for matters that are not relevant to the DYK review process. Overall though, this is excellent work. Best, -- [[User:Notecardforfree|Notecardforfree]] ([[User talk:Notecardforfree|talk]]) 18:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 
:::I really like '''ALT1''', but there are two things that would need to change before '''ALT1''' could be approved: (1) the article would need to state that Foster may not get a new trial (right now, it only says that his conviction may not be overturned), and (2) you should change the word "finding" with "holding" or "ruling" (trial courts generally issue findings of fact while appellate courts generally issue holdings in which those courts apply facts to law). I will also add a few brief editorial suggestions on the article's talk page for matters that are not relevant to the DYK review process. Overall though, this is excellent work. Best, -- [[User:Notecardforfree|Notecardforfree]] ([[User talk:Notecardforfree|talk]]) 18:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 
:::*I changed '''ALT1''' to be more in line with the source. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] [[User talk:Wugapodes|[t<sup>h</sup>ɔk]]] [[Special:Contributions/Wugapodes|[kantʃɻɪbz]]] 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 
:::*I changed '''ALT1''' to be more in line with the source. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] [[User talk:Wugapodes|[t<sup>h</sup>ɔk]]] [[Special:Contributions/Wugapodes|[kantʃɻɪbz]]] 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
::::*{{u|Wugapodes}}, thanks for following up with this. '''ALT1''' is good to go as well. Best, -- [[User:Notecardforfree|Notecardforfree]] ([[User talk:Notecardforfree|talk]]) 17:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
+
::::*{{u|Wugapodes}}, thanks for following up with this. '''ALT1''' is good to go as well. Best, -- [[User:Notecardforfree|Notecardforfree]] ([[User talk:Notecardforfree|talk]]) 17:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)</div></noinclude><!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 

Latest revision as of 06:38, 1 June 2016

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Foster v. Chatman

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bamidele Ali
  • Comment: This is a rather mundane Supreme Court decision, so a "hooky" hook is hard to create. The sole dissenting justice was the court's only African-American, but a hook relating to that fact may not be neutral and raises BLP issues.

Created by Elium2 (talk), Wugapodes (talk), and AHeneen (talk). Nominated by AHeneen (talk) at 07:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg First of all, I want to thank you for your continued efforts to expand coverage of SCOTUS cases on Wikipedia -- this article is another nice addition to the encyclopedia! This article was created on May 23, it is over 1500 characters, and there are no issues with core policies. There is a fair bit of language that is also used in the Court's opinion, but that is unavoidable in articles like these. The original hook is under 200 characters, interesting, and supported by a citation to a reliable source. QPQ is satisfied and there are no images associated with this nomination.
I really like ALT1, but there are two things that would need to change before ALT1 could be approved: (1) the article would need to state that Foster may not get a new trial (right now, it only says that his conviction may not be overturned), and (2) you should change the word "finding" with "holding" or "ruling" (trial courts generally issue findings of fact while appellate courts generally issue holdings in which those courts apply facts to law). I will also add a few brief editorial suggestions on the article's talk page for matters that are not relevant to the DYK review process. Overall though, this is excellent work. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)